The beginning of the end for P2Ps/Torrent Sites?

[IsiliRunite]

If only I could convince all the executives and lawyers in the world that me saving 3,000 dollars on music today will be good for society in the long run...

I guess thats not true, though, because I can't even buy most of the stuff I want to download. I would like to think filling my ears with illegal music is not the most un-artistic thing that happens in the music industry, though. Don't most musicians think executives are 'stealing'?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

And why not? If indeed the choices are 5,000 sold or 10,000 sold and 10,000 taken for free, you'd honestly choose the 5,000? If you say no, then there IS some justification for filesharing. As illegal and immoral as you want to see it, it's not an obvious netgative.

I'm not even arguing that it doesn't have its consequences. Obviously it does. But it not as though I'm going to just download everything because I can. I realize that if I really do want some movie or album I should pay for it. At the same time I'm not feeling guilty if I d/l something that I never would have bought anyways as a means of gauging interest, as though I went into the guy's house and took some of his property.

Well then it's pretty unclear to me what you're arguing. In your above question, if I knew for a fact that I could have 10,000 sold as a result of 10,000 taken for free, sure I'd choose that. Who wouldn't? But there's no way of knowing that up front, and unfortunately, I've ONLY had the opposite actually happen to me and the musicians I've worked with directly. I've been hired to do remixes, the singles they were on were released, sales were low while the illegal filesharing the label tracked was high, and the label had to subsequently shut down because they were unable to pay the remixers they hired, their own employees, and themselves. How many of those shared files would have been legitimate sales as opposed to "sampling" style downloads? I have no way of knowing, but it's probably safe to assume that a decent percentage of them would have been. Say 10 or maybe 20%? Probably enough to at least pay the remixing fees to the people who created the intellectual property on the releases.

So again, as I've acknowledged all along, some people have benefitted from illegal file sharing. All I'm arguing is that others have been seriously hurt by it, and I personally don't feel it's right to gamble with other people's livelihoods by saying "downloading this illegally might very well hurt this artist, but it might help them too, so I'm willing to take that chance!" Take this kind of chance with your own career if you'd like, but not with someone else's. And I don't know exactly what you're trying to argue because you claim to pay for any music you have in order to support the artists you like. So why do you do that if you're so adamant about how awesome illegal downloading has been for so many artists, how the gray area makes it impossible to know if it's really hurting anyone, and even that illegal downloading "hurts no one"?

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Yes, but the notion of property is entirely granted by the government. It looks like you're arguing on a legal standpoint as you never said anything about used CDs, which AFAIK 'hurt' the artist just as much as downloading.

Used CDs have their own specific issues to weigh, some legal, and some practical. Many CDs in used shops have been sold or traded to the store by the original owner, and from a legal standpoint, that's allowed under the first sale doctrine. First sale doctrine basically states that you have the freedom to do certain things with your particular copy of a CD once you've gained legal possession of it from the original copyright owner. Included in those rights is reselling it. You also frequently see "for promotional use only" stickers on many of the CDs in used shops. These copies are virtually guaranteed to have at least been in the hands of people who can effectively promote the intellectual property contained on the CD - DJs, radio stations, whoever - so by the time they've
hit the shelves of a used CD shop, they've probably already paid for themselves plus some. So there are a different set of issues to be discussed in the case of used CDs, although I do agree that abuse of these rights can obviously be capable of hurting some artists as well. Practically speaking though, I don't think it was ever as rampant an issue as illegal downloading is today.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I do think file sharing can hurt smaller artists. I really do. PROVING it is another obsticle altogether. Were the artists hurt because they didn't sell enough or did they feel bad because their copyrights were stomped on? If it's the former, how do you prove that filesharing caused the album to not sell as projected as opposed to poor marketing/general disinterest/lousy quality? Albums and movies flopped long before filesharing ever took place. I don't disagree that filesharing could be the reason. I am arguing that it may not be, or in fact could have led to bigger sales than you expected.

So in some strange way, we basically agree. It could help some people, yes, but it also hurts others. And as long as people continue perpetuating the attitude that there's nothing wrong with it, the potential for more people to get hurt increases.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Doesn't this just show the RIAA/MPAA's willingness to bend their definitions to fit their goals more than anything?

It doesn't just bend the definitions - they're flat out lying. That's part of why your similar stance on this confuses me. I'm not saying you're lying, but their stance doesn't stand up to any logic or scrutiny, and your stance takes a similar approach to the subject. Meanwhile, artists keep getting screwed out of money that should rightfully be theirs by both big businesses and individual consumers.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Well, jaywalking is a crime too. Should I stop trying to justify my jaywalking? Seriously, as far as I'm concerned it's the only way to walk. You're right, victims are not thankful for being on the receiving end of a crime. But when it comes to filesharing, some people are. Maybe this is an indication that there is some gray area?

I never said there was no gray area in the overall affects of illegal file sharing. I've only said that people need to realize it is undeniably hurting some smaller artists. I don't know how many times and ways I have to say that before it's clear. People shouldn't just download whatever they want for free thinking that it's somehow a victimless crime, or that they're even some kind of Robin Hood for sticking it to those rich labels and musicians - and a lot of people do that these days. Period. That's my argument.

.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

F-ing hell, thank God I could afford a new pack of smokes.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Don't most musicians think executives are 'stealing'?

This is actually a strong, pertinent point to discuss. Music deals that many labels offer to musicians these days tend to be stacked so heavily in the label's favor that the artists often find themselves losing money despite the phenomenal success of a release, or only making the equivalent of the salary they could have made by working at a 7-11 or something. Honestly though, that's not stealing - it's up to the artist to be responsible enough to know what kind of deal they're signing, and what kind of label they're signing with. I went through the same thing when I started at Sony Pictures. I signed a lowball offer because I was naive and just happy to get my foot in the door of computer animation when all my previous experience had been in traditional, hand-drawn animation. That was my own fault, and I had to live with it for a couple years, watching some people doing lower quality work than me while getting paid more, unable to do anything about it. But I made up for it with my next contract, and have been very aware and informed ever since then before signing anything.

Anyway, this reality is exactly what's led so many artists to start up their own little labels so they can self-distribute, which makes them much more vulnerable to piracy. A big label can lose a few thousand bucks and not really be hurt, but if a little independent label started up by you or I loses a few thousand bucks, it can mean the end of the road. Hopefully, as time goes on, more consumers can understand that and try to change their ways to keep it from being too destructive.

How I think we should behave when it comes to the ways we obtain art, such as music, is summed up very well in the movie Contact:

DAVID DRUMLIN
I know you must think this is all very unfair.
Maybe that's an understatement. What you
don't know is I agree. I wish the world was a
place where fair was the bottom line, where
the kind of idealism you showed at the
hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage
of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

ELLIE ARROWAY
Funny, I've always believed that the world is
what we make of it.

Screw the RIAA and big movie studios - it's up to us to be responsible for our own actions.

[Strangelet]

Which is where you and I were bound to meet on this issue, Sean.

The most important aspect of this debate for me is what is best for the artists.

Now that the distribution and manufacturing of physical media is no longer an excuse to fuck over the artists down to pennies on the dollar, and advertisement is as viral as a sock puppet video on youtube, there's actually more economic sense for labels and artists to work in agile, like minded collectives.

But that's dependent on the assumption that people will actually pay for their shit.

which is why people who wholesale download whatever the fuck they want, while smirking at Sony, is actually doing a great job of giving the RIAA/MPAA corporate model a new excuse to control everything. So that they can spend all their money on lawyers and more restrictive DRM technology. They can continue the mindset where the consumer's interests come before the artists. Because its all about the great unwashed birther dumb fuck consumer with the corporate model. And that's what we have and will continue to have if consumers act like artists exist for their whims.

[chuck]

Seven crimes to consider Before you pirate the music.

I don't agree with everything in this article - but it's an interesting take on the issue.

I'm quite keen on the burning down Lars Ulrich house one as well. ;-)

And yes - it's hypothetical and written as entertainment. So don't get too hot under the collar.

I was interested in the fact that Obama's appointed a couple of RIAA lawyers to the justice department though.

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

That is definitely the thing I hate the most about the RIAA; most punishments fit the crime, but this one is out of whack. I remember a study being done that said that more people have pirated music than voted for president, and if the RIAA thinks that they're fining the proper amount, they must think then that they are entitled to something like a million billion dollars from the American public. It would be like if speeding carried a 6-figure fine and several years in jail. Really hamfisted and not helping their cause at all. It is strictly negative PR and nobody's going to be able to pay that much.

[matt]

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this rant by Lily Allen:

Lily
My current opinion is that file sharing is now the norm. This cannot be changed without an attack on perceived civil liberties which will never go down well. The problem is that the ISPs making the extreme profits (due to millions of broadband subscriptions) are not being taxed by the copyright owners correctly and this is a legislation issue. Radio stations and TV stations etc have to pay the copyright owners (both recording and publishing) a fee for using material they do not own. ISPs should have to pay in the same way with a collection agency like PRS doing the monitoring and calculations based on encoded (but freely downloaded) data. Broadband makes the internet essentially the new broadcaster. This is the point which is being missed.
Also, usage should have a value. Someone who just checks email uses minimal bandwidth, but someone who downloads 1 gig per day uses way more, but at the moment they pay the same. It is clear which user is hitting the creative industries and it is clear which user is not, so for this reason, usage should also be priced accordingly. The end result will be a taxed, monitored ISP based on usage which will ensure both the freedom of the consumer and the rights of the artists - the loser will be the ISP who will probably have to increase subscription costs to compensate, but the user will have the freedom to choose between checking a few emails (which will cost far less than a current monthly subscription) and downloading tons of music and film (which will cost probably a bit more than current subscription, but not that much more).

We should set up a meeting with Lord Mandelson as he is on this issue at the moment, I'm sure he would meet us for breakfast!

[bas_I_am]

Originally Posted by matt

Interesting response from Matt Bellamy of Muse to this rant by Lily Allen:

Mr. Bellamy has made a seriously flawed argument. what if that 1 gig of data per day is my own data? When I am developing I am often pulling a half gig of data or more over my pipe in both directions.

that data is mine. I own the copyright.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bas_I_am

Mr. Bellamy has made a seriously flawed argument. what if that 1 gig of data per day is my own data? When I am developing I am often pulling a half gig of data or more over my pipe in both directions.

that data is mine. I own the copyright.

Great point.